Borders

[The Patriot]

First off, I am not new, so I dont need all "the welcomings". My VERY OLD registered user got screwed up, and I havent been here in a while, so I am re-registering...Just to let everyone know.

Not only should borders be in civ3, but also, borders should cover ocean squares as well. So that there is not free naval travel as there was in civ2.

comments?

------------------
We are not Westernors. We are not Southernors. We are not Yankees. WE ARE AMERICANS.

[New Yorker]

i don't like this idea, just playing with you

i think it is a good idea, but how would your border thing would work out-something like in SMACrossfire or in CTP 2

------------------------------------
New Yorkers aren't human cuz its not a human who could be immune to such levels of pollution, well maybe people from New Jersey

[magma12]

I like the border, but it have to be better than CTP2.
There might me a contest land in which can lead to a conflict. We might be able to demand AI to give the contest land to us etc. I hope if there is a border in the game, the AI would pay more respect to it than in CTP2.

I really hate when AI settler move in my land and build city.

[Sean]

Borders over the sea are a must. But I do not like the way ctp II does not allow you to build tile improvements, like roads, outside your borders. Borders should also be more flexible, and take terrian into account. There have been some excellent posts on this subject, previously.
[This message has been edited by Sean (edited February 06, 2001).]

[bagdar]

quote: Originally posted by Sean on 01-29-2001 05:43 AM Borders should also be more flexible, and take terrian into account.

Yes! That'll make them more realistic, and they'll look great. Mountains, rivers, etc. have always played an important role in determining borders.

[wittlich]

I agree national borders over the sea should be incorporated into CIV3. The one thing I don't like about CIV2 is that in the beginning of the game the AI can come up to my city by boat and attack it, or sit next to my city (in my waters) but I can't diplomatically contact him because "I have not made contact yet" Really?? I can either see him sitting off my coast, or he just rammed his ship up against my defensive unit in my city...and I have no contact??

National borders are a must and they need to extend out over "your" waters too.

[EnochF]

As a peaceful, expansive player, I think borders might provide a good deal of incentive for me (and players like me) to begin to use more warlike tactics. That was my experience in SMAC, anyway. Whenever that great, vast frontier to the west (that I naturally assumed I would fill with cities in a few turns) suddenly gets cut off by an enemy border, I seriously contemplate a military offensive to take it back.

Which is probably good, in the long run.

Thumbs up to Borders.

In fact, I'd like a way to negotiate borders in Diplomacy. You could have the player draw a border, and the computer can accept or reject (or accept it as long as you pay gold, or give them a tech advance, or whatever). Or you could even give the computer the ability to draw borders and ask for agreement (and the player could accept it in exchange for gold or a tech advance or whatever).

[Cyclotron]

Well, one idea is no water borders... If sea units don't exert a ZOC and don't expel enemy workers, why have a border? Why attack a ship that doesn't harm you in the least? What is the use of trying to keep it out? Reasons for realism are fine, but realize that gameplay should take precedence. What good are sea borders at all?

[Cyclotron]

Umm... I don't know. I like the strategic value of being able to blockade and bottleneck crucial straits and such, but I think having the entire radius be yours including the sea is somewhat excessive. Theoretically, I could have a city on the north side on the English channel that would make it impossible for any ships to successfully leave the city on the other side, and vice versa. So both cities would be "locked down" by sea until they cancelled their treaty. I think that since there are current treaties about international waters that limit them to x-distance, I think that controlled waters should only be ones both in your city square and adjacent to a land square.

As for adjustable borders, I agree entirely. I think that there should be a 3 or 4 -square MAXIMUM radius around each city. With each population, you choose a square to occupy, and this becomes your territory. It then becomes possible to encompass a long valley into one city, or a section of coastline rather than just a circular blotch.

I also think their should be something about claiming land... perhaps land that you claimed somehow could not have cities built upon it by other civs unless they paid you money for the land.

[The Patriot]

you have a very good point. Bottlenecked areas would be extremely hard to implement with water-borders. I cant think of any idea to shove this problem asside. anyone else have an idea?

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by The Patriot on 01-29-2001 12:30 PM you have a very good point. Bottlenecked areas would be extremely hard to implement with water-borders. I cant think of any idea to shove this problem asside. anyone else have an idea?

Aren't the oceans supposed to be international bodies where any nation can go?

Of course there would be a square or two where you can claim dominion to protect your cities, but not over a great deal of the ocean. I believe that their is still freedom of the seas.

[wittlich]

I think I may have not explained myself with my concern for borders which extend over water.

These borders which actually extend over water would only be the water squares adjacent to land squares WITHIN the given city radius.

[- Groucho -]

quote: Originally posted by The Patriot on 01-29-2001 12:30 PM you have a very good point. Bottlenecked areas would be extremely hard to implement with water-borders. I cant think of any idea to shove this problem asside. anyone else have an idea?

How about this? Assuming that SMAC equiv borders are used, everybody gets a one or two square border along any shore that is in their borders (to reflect the current law of the sea which only gives nations either 10 miles/250 kms/ or the continental shelf - pick your poison). Additionally, Diplomacy will allow you to negotiate allowable sea routes with the AI which don't constitute treaty violations (as long as you move straight through and don't complete your move next to a city or something). The downside is that the AI would have to be able to recognize when bottlenecks occur and be able to decided if it was in its interest to allow the route. That might be a tricky bit of coding.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."

[wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by Echinda on 01-30-2001 10:28 PM How about this? Assuming that SMAC equiv borders are used, everybody gets a one or two square border along any shore that is in their borders (to reflect the current law of the sea which only gives nations either 10 miles/250 kms/ or the continental shelf - pick your poison). Additionally, Diplomacy will allow you to negotiate allowable sea routes with the AI which don't constitute treaty violations (as long as you move straight through and don't complete your move next to a city or something). The downside is that the AI would have to be able to recognize when bottlenecks occur and be able to decided if it was in its interest to allow the route. That might be a tricky bit of coding.

You have my vote Echinda. That's exactly what I was thinking

[Grumbold]

A sea border of 2 squares from any claimed land seems suitable. Should two or more civs claim the same tiles then it should be 'disputed' territory like BotF. The diplomatic offer of relinquishing/claiming certain disputed tiles as part of an agreement was one of the best ideas in that game. If that cannot be easily included then there should always be a 1 tile wide channel through any narrow parts of international waters. I'm also fond of the idea of units being able to stack or pass through each other without causing combat. The idea of a transport ship, sub, plane or settler blocking movement of another empires units has always seemed ridiculous to me when tiles represent tens if not hundreds of square miles.